Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15670 (UTT)

ABBAS ALIAS DR M A RAHUL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1940/2025 · 2025-10-17

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:9388 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 9 4 0 / 2 0 2 5 Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. 1. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant Abbas @ Dr. M.A. Rahul is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 22.09.2025, bearing FIR No. 417 of 2025 registered at P.S. Kashipur District U.S. Nagar wherein as many as three persons, namely, Nadeem Akhtar, Hanif Gandhi, Danish Chaudhary and various persons have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 121(1), 132, 221, 352, 351(2), 324(3), 190, 196(c), 109 of BNS 2023 read with Sections 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he was not the part of the procession which was going on, as mentioned in the FIR, and he has no nexus with the persons who are named in the FIR. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he has also been honoured with ‘Uttarakhand Ratan’ and is a well known person in the society. 4. On the other side, Mr. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the investigation is still going on and the manner in which the incident was happened is a very serious issue and it will certainly effect the public at large not of the locality but the entire State, therefore, in such a situation when the investigation is going on the applicant does not deserve for bail. 2025:UHC:9388 5. After hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the allegations as alleged in the FIR, this Court is of the view since the investigation is going on, the applicant does not deserve for bail at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) 1 7 .1 0.2 0 2 5 Parul